NJ Driving Law: use of cellphone while stopped at a red light

[bob_2]

@Riemann

How does the law reconcile this with the use of non-phone satnav devices, built-in or otherwise? Is it illegal to touch a non-phone satnav device while operating a vehicle?

Not at present; however, if police think you are distracted or not in control of your vehicle you will be stopped and issued with a penalty or prosecuted in the event of an accident.

[Loach]

@md2000

Yes and no. Since a ticket makes revenue for the local government, the incentive is to ticket as much as possible, under the guise of “improving safety”. Just like seatbelt laws, the police will use a variety of tricks to catch you. They have undercover cops on motorcycles, pretending to be squeegee kids, and I even heard of a place in Canada where they were riding the bus and looking down on drivers going by (and then radio a chase car…) Basically, they are not just waiting for you to run over granny before giving you a ticket.

The law in some Canadian provinces - and I assume, the direction most of North America is headed if they aren’t there already - if you have the phone in your hand for any reason, while driving, is a ticket. If you are in Park, on the side of the road (where stopping is legally allowed) then you are not in violation. If you use hands-free, also not a violation. Putting the car in Park in the middle of the driving lanes at a red light doesn’t count as “not driving”.

However the cops get no money from the ticket so they have no incentive. In New Jersey 90% of the fine goes to the state and not the local government. Just enough to pay the overhead of the local court. So there is no incentive. Personally in 20 years I have never been pressured to write tickets because of revenue. The implication upthread that someone was lied to so that some other officer can later reap the benefit from a duped motorist is rediculous.

[Riemann]

@t-bonham@scc.net

…**Let’s get real, folks! **
Something like this only comes to the attention of cops because you messed up your driving while playing with a device. The cop notices your poor driving, then sees what you are doing, and pulls you over. If you are able to adjust your radio, or turn up the heat, or use your phone navigation while still driving normally, you are unlikely to get noticed & pulled over. People do this all the time, without problems.

And when a cop tickets you for using a device when you are behind the wheel but the car is stationary, can you just tell the cop to “get real”?

It seems to me that the discussion in this thread is largely about the question of whether the law is both internally consistent and consistent with common sense, and that the conclusion so far is that in most jurisdictions it’s probably not.

[x-ray_vision]

@Loach

In New Jersey 90% of the fine goes to the state and not the local government. Just enough to pay the overhead of the local court. So there is no incentive.

I got a different story in an article from 2016:

Whether the fine goes to the state or the county or the municipality depends on who issues the ticket, most of the time.

If a Title 39 traffic ticket (like speeding, using a cell phone while driving or driving without a license, among many potential offenses) is written by a state trooper, 100 percent of the fine goes to the state treasury, Comfort said.

If a municipal officer writes a Title 39 traffic ticket, the fine is split half-and-half by the municipality and the county, Comfort said.

Fines for certain traffic offenses, like inspection violations, needed repairs, and outdated inspection stickers, go 100 percent to the state treasury no matter who writes the ticket, she said.

We paid $405M in tickets last year; see where the money went

[mmmiiikkkeee]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

They do not have the right to lie about whether a given act is legal (they can arguably wrongly state that an act is illegal).

There are tons of videos online showing police noticing a person filming them and telling them to stop filming them because it’s illegal, which it certainly is not. I can’t believe all these various officers from all over the country are so poorly trained that they all coincidently make the same basic mistake using the same phrasing and timing during stops year in year out and that nothing has been done to correct it. It’s quite obviously part of their training either officially or on the job from more experienced co workers. Whether you’ll find anyone in the business willing to admit to the various tricks and intentional misinformation used is another story.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Right. Now find one where an officer wrongfully tells someone an act is legal.

[md2000]

@Loach

However the cops get no money from the ticket so they have no incentive. In New Jersey 90% of the fine goes to the state and not the local government. Just enough to pay the overhead of the local court. So there is no incentive. Personally in 20 years I have never been pressured to write tickets because of revenue. The implication upthread that someone was lied to so that some other officer can later reap the benefit from a duped motorist is rediculous.

And to be fair - New Jersey is the state I most often drive in; one or more times a year for the last 3 or 4 decades, I’ve either driven down there or flown into NYC and rented at Newark. I have never been stopped by the police; and none of my relatives there ever complained about the police. Whether the Turnpike, Parkway, or local driving (like crowded Rte 22) even driving over 10mph over speed limit (staying with the flow of traffic) never had any hassles. Obviously, you guys are doing traffic control properly.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

My experience - and that of many other people who live and drive in NJ - is that there’s a big difference between the state troopers and the local police in this regard. The state troopers - which is most of who patrols the interstate highways - generally won’t ticket anyone who goes with traffic a few miles over the speed limit. But the local police vary a lot, and certain towns are notorious for having ticket-happy cops.

One practical difference is if you’re going north-south and considering either the GSP or Rte 9. By day it’s a no-brainer what with traffic, but late at night the 9 can be tempting as it’s a much shorter route. But the thing is that if you take the 9 then you have a much higher chance to getting a ticket from some local cop along the way.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Saint_Cad

You’re in California right? Would you say there is no incentive for a police officer to lie to a member of the public about the legality of not producing identification when a cop demands it?

No. And yes. What does a cop get out of telling a member of the public that the member of the public may lawfully refuse to provide identification?

@x-ray_vision

All I’m getting out of that is that school bus drivers can never use cell phones while driving, while other drivers can use hands-free devices while talking on cell phones., but can not text or play video games. There’s no implications made regarding GPS being used on a phone being held.

If the legislature specifically banned (non-school-bus) drivers from talking, texting or playing games, but did not mention using navigation apps, the implication is that the use of navigation apps is perfectly legal.

[x-ray_vision]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

If the legislature specifically banned (non-school-bus) drivers from talking, texting or playing games, but did not mention using navigation apps, the implication is that the use of navigation apps is perfectly legal.

Web pages on lawyers’ websites don’t always list everything that has been banned. In any case, that web page is outdated.

[md2000]

The question is what the law specifically says. Most of the different laws I’ve seen quoted mention “no operating a cellular phone - except hands free”. I seriously doubt it enumerates text and video games. That would imply browsing the internet or replying to straight dope is acceptable at 60mph. So using a specialized GPS - OK. Using a cellular mounted so it is hands free as a GPS - also OK. Reading the GPS or Waze app with the phone in your hand while not in park - not legal.

[Saint_Cad]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

No. And yes. What does a cop get out of telling a member of the public that the member of the public may lawfully refuse to provide identification?

Apparently in Barstow they get to be racist and get to throw a pregnant black woman to the ground and arrest her for not complying with the made up law.
So you tell me. At the same time you can also tell me why they did NOT ask the white woman involved for her ID. Almost like the police get to make separate laws for black people.

[engineer_comp_geek]

@Saint_Cad

Almost like the police get to make separate laws for black people.

Let’s not hijack this thread with racial issues. If you want to discuss racial issues, feel free to do so, just not in this thread.

[Saint_Cad]

@engineer_comp_geek

Let’s not hijack this thread with racial issues. If you want to discuss racial issues, feel free to do so, just not in this thread.

In all fairness my original post was about cops making up laws, specifically having to show ID which is not a law in California. RNATB asked “What does a cop get out of telling a member of the public that the member of the public may lawfully refuse to provide identification?”

I’m not exactly sure what RNATB’s question is asking for but the point I raised is that the cops did not refuse to tell the woman in question she didn’t have to show ID. They arrested her for violating a law that didn’t exist. The racial issue was to demonstrate that it was not an oopsies I didn’t know (that would be bad enough) but they did not ask a white woman for her ID. I believe it shows that they knowingly made up the law for racist reasons.

This is an issue that has been raised elsewhere in this thread, specifically mmmiiikkkeee with telling people it is illegal to film them in public. I think it is important to note in this discussion that there are two issues here.
One, cops making honest mistakes think something is illegal when it is not.
Two, cops knowingly telling someone something is illegal when it is not, for example that it is illegal to film them so there is no evidence of their actions as mmmiiikkkeee points out or harrassing a black person for ID and arresting them so they can charge them with resisting arrest.

So when discussing cops giving wrong information to people, why can we not discuss motivation?

[md2000]

IMHO some (!) police are in the job because they like to be bossy and throw their weight around. Sometimes this brings out their deep-set prejudices either consciously, or subconsciously. Racism, obviously, is one of the deeper embedded prejudices in the USA.

A department that puts more effort into covering up their dirty laundry rather than controlling their problems will eventually find out, like the Boy Scouts, the Catholic Church, Watergate, and numerous other events around the world - you can only hide problems for so long. It’s even worse now that everyone carries around a video camera.

For example, there is a legal exception that evidence is admissible and rights violations are excusable if done improperly if the police honestly believed what they were doing was OK. But - in this day and age, can a policeman still claim they did not know that filming them in public without interfering was not illegal? IIRC there have been court cases all the way up to the Supremes about this. The ID law (again a Supreme Court decision) is fairly specific - when the person is part of an investigation and identifying them is necessary.

ACLU of Southern California staff attorney Adrienna Wong said that even if officers are conducting an investigation, they must have a reason to demand identification, such as when a driver is being booked.
…
Shaun Rundle, a government affairs and public safety specialist with the California Peace Officers Assn., said police can demand identification when they are conducting an investigation.

"Somebody has a right to not talk to a police officer if they’re just sitting on the street and are approached by someone with ‘I have a question,’ " he said. “The public certainly do need to know their rights. But they need to know if they are being questioned by an officer usually that’s considered an investigation and they would have to identify themselves at that point.”

The Supreme Court if I understand it said that when police are investigating something and the person is relevant to the investigation then there must be a positive ID. The recent Supreme case was about a pair that refused to even say their names. I recall some discussion that it was not clear whether simply stating your name was sufficient to satisfy that requirement, or whether one must produce ID. (I.e. the police cannot be writing reports like “approached Hispanic male appeared early 20’s blue shirt and he denied being in the store…” they would need to have names attached to such reports. Although in today’s age of body cams, I don’t see why a bodycam photo or video clip is not an acceptable substitute.)

[Jennshark]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Question is if this is legal.

A few years ago a friend of mine used his cellphone while stopped at a red light in NYC and was given a ticket by a cop. He argued that he was not “driving” and the cop said to tell it to the judge, and he asked me if I could look up the law. The law as written in NY does say that it’s only illegal while the vehicle is in motion, so he did “tell it to the judge”, and the judge dismissed the ticket immediately.

Now I live in NJ, and the other day I passed by a cop writing out a parking ticket, and I asked him if it’s illegal to talk on a cellphone in NJ if you’re stopped at a red light. He said it was. I noted that in NY it’s legal and he said yeah but in NJ it’s illegal. But I looked up the law and it seems to say otherwise (emphasis added).So it seems like it’s only illegal if it’s moving, which would seem to preclude when it’s stopped at a red light.

Unless there’s some weird legal definition of “moving” that is not apparent to the lay reader. Or perhaps there’s been some subsequent revisions to the law since 2013 (though this is the section that consistently shows up when you google NJ cell phone laws).

So I’m guessing this cop is not any better informed than the cop in NY was. But perhaps I’m wrong.

Tangentially: I teach in PA, live in NJ, and frequent NYC. I have to remember which state has what laws (i.e., where it’s legal to right turn on red light, cellphone usage laws, and so on).

[Saint_Cad]

@md2000

For example, there is a legal exception that evidence is admissible and rights violations are excusable if done improperly if the police honestly believed what they were doing was OK. But - in this day and age, can a policeman still claim they did not know that filming them in public without interfering was not illegal? IIRC there have been court cases all the way up to the Supremes about this. The ID law (again a Supreme Court decision) is fairly specific - when the person is part of an investigation and identifying them is necessary.

But if you are not an LEO, ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Someone explain THAT to me.